Joana Diago Dsouza Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017–18. The reassessment had been initiated after information was received from the DIT (Investigation & Criminal Intelligence), Mumbai that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at a value lower than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority.
The assessee had not filed a return of income for AY 2017–18. After an order under section 148A(d), notice under section 148 was issued on 26 July 2022. The assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 3,48,550. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had jointly purchased a flat with her granddaughter for Rs. 1,29,10,500, whereas the stamp duty value was Rs. 1,42,90,000. The Assessing Officer applied section 56(2)(vii)(b) and brought to tax Rs. 6,89,750, being 50% of the difference. The reassessment order dated 13 April 2023 determined total income at Rs. 10,38,300.
The CIT(A), by order dated 17 October 2025 under section 250, dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte, upheld the reopening under section 147, confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,89,750 under section 56(2)(vii)(b), and upheld initiation of penalty under section 270A.
